ColoradoCare starts the conversation
Published in the Boulder Daily Camera 10/26/16
I must again apologize to you millennials and Gen-Xers for us baby boomers. Since we were born, it's been all about us, and, even though our expiration date is approaching, we still get to set the political agenda. And, as we sink further into stinking-old-wreck status, health care is at the top of our to-do list.
Starting in the 1960s with Medicare, our government's role in health care has been an ongoing national conversation. Six years ago, Obamacare rocked America's social contract by mandating many needed changes — like guaranteeing health insurance for sick people and requiring us all to obtain insurance and, in so doing, share in national health care costs. But, the economic structures within Obamacare were dangerously flawed and are now failing. Obamacare's pending crash stops being just a Republican talking point when Bill Clinton and the Democratic governor of deep-blue Minnesota start telling us that Obamacare in it's current form is crazy and unaffordable, as has happened in the past few weeks. Changes are coming.
On cue, Coloradans have chosen this moment to debate what a future health care system might look like. Amendment 69 — ColoradoCare — is on the ballot proving that, whether it's legalizing pot or socializing health care, Coloradans don't mind taking the tough issues on directly. Good for us.
ColoradoCare represents one extreme solution to managing health care that would be, for all intents and purposes, a government takeover of Colorado health care delivery. Under ColoradoCare, insurance companies would be replaced with a Colorado government health care bureaucracy that would be as large as our current state government. This government bureaucracy would collect all health care payments through taxes and pay health care providers directly only for those services the state deems appropriate. About the only way our health care could be more directly controlled by the government is if all health care providers had to work directly for the state.
Amendment 69 is a step too far and is struggling in recent polls, finding only 27 percent of Colorado voters supporting it. But, whatever the outcome, there's an impending void in American health care and we should learn something from this conversation.
As we've debated ColoradoCare, it's become clear that our willingness to hand over control of our health care to government is limited by two things, 1) our desire for freedom of choice and 2) our faith in government's competence to manage technically complex enterprises like health-care systems.
Americans take our freedoms seriously and never more than when our health is at stake. Furthermore, we don't always agree on what "good health care" means. For example, some of us want to pick our own doctors and hospitals, even if they cost more. Others want a managed system that's efficient and effective whoever provides it. Obamacare passed in part because of the President's promise that if we liked our insurance plan, we could keep it. When we found that to be false, we were furious.
Plus, freedom of choice means more competition and, over time, competition leads to lower costs and better service.
Handing the government a larger role in our health-care decision-making necessarily means giving up some of our health-care freedom of choice to government institutions. Hmm ... if you find the sentence, "We're the government and we're here to help," as amusing as I do, it's probably because your experience with government services has been, shall we say, less than fully satisfying. Government institutions always seem to make private enterprise look good when it comes to customer focus and technical prowess. Private enterprise has to keep customers satisfied whereas government workers are largely unaffected by the satisfaction of the people they serve. Likewise, when a company loses its technical edge, it ceases to exist. Government lives forever.
So, what we want is a health-care system for everyone that allows us to make all our own decisions, provides the best care possible, and is cheaper than it is today. We agree that our government must have a role in all of this, but, for good reasons, we have lots of worries about what that role should be and how we can make sure that government keeps the promises it makes.
ColoradoCare proposes to give the government pretty much the whole enchilada, which makes this election a great time for Coloradans to talk about what we do and don't want our government's role to be in keeping us alive and fit. So, take this moment to argue with a friend and hurry up about it. We baby-boomers want it now.
I must again apologize to you millennials and Gen-Xers for us baby boomers. Since we were born, it's been all about us, and, even though our expiration date is approaching, we still get to set the political agenda. And, as we sink further into stinking-old-wreck status, health care is at the top of our to-do list.
Starting in the 1960s with Medicare, our government's role in health care has been an ongoing national conversation. Six years ago, Obamacare rocked America's social contract by mandating many needed changes — like guaranteeing health insurance for sick people and requiring us all to obtain insurance and, in so doing, share in national health care costs. But, the economic structures within Obamacare were dangerously flawed and are now failing. Obamacare's pending crash stops being just a Republican talking point when Bill Clinton and the Democratic governor of deep-blue Minnesota start telling us that Obamacare in it's current form is crazy and unaffordable, as has happened in the past few weeks. Changes are coming.
On cue, Coloradans have chosen this moment to debate what a future health care system might look like. Amendment 69 — ColoradoCare — is on the ballot proving that, whether it's legalizing pot or socializing health care, Coloradans don't mind taking the tough issues on directly. Good for us.
ColoradoCare represents one extreme solution to managing health care that would be, for all intents and purposes, a government takeover of Colorado health care delivery. Under ColoradoCare, insurance companies would be replaced with a Colorado government health care bureaucracy that would be as large as our current state government. This government bureaucracy would collect all health care payments through taxes and pay health care providers directly only for those services the state deems appropriate. About the only way our health care could be more directly controlled by the government is if all health care providers had to work directly for the state.
Amendment 69 is a step too far and is struggling in recent polls, finding only 27 percent of Colorado voters supporting it. But, whatever the outcome, there's an impending void in American health care and we should learn something from this conversation.
As we've debated ColoradoCare, it's become clear that our willingness to hand over control of our health care to government is limited by two things, 1) our desire for freedom of choice and 2) our faith in government's competence to manage technically complex enterprises like health-care systems.
Americans take our freedoms seriously and never more than when our health is at stake. Furthermore, we don't always agree on what "good health care" means. For example, some of us want to pick our own doctors and hospitals, even if they cost more. Others want a managed system that's efficient and effective whoever provides it. Obamacare passed in part because of the President's promise that if we liked our insurance plan, we could keep it. When we found that to be false, we were furious.
Plus, freedom of choice means more competition and, over time, competition leads to lower costs and better service.
Handing the government a larger role in our health-care decision-making necessarily means giving up some of our health-care freedom of choice to government institutions. Hmm ... if you find the sentence, "We're the government and we're here to help," as amusing as I do, it's probably because your experience with government services has been, shall we say, less than fully satisfying. Government institutions always seem to make private enterprise look good when it comes to customer focus and technical prowess. Private enterprise has to keep customers satisfied whereas government workers are largely unaffected by the satisfaction of the people they serve. Likewise, when a company loses its technical edge, it ceases to exist. Government lives forever.
So, what we want is a health-care system for everyone that allows us to make all our own decisions, provides the best care possible, and is cheaper than it is today. We agree that our government must have a role in all of this, but, for good reasons, we have lots of worries about what that role should be and how we can make sure that government keeps the promises it makes.
ColoradoCare proposes to give the government pretty much the whole enchilada, which makes this election a great time for Coloradans to talk about what we do and don't want our government's role to be in keeping us alive and fit. So, take this moment to argue with a friend and hurry up about it. We baby-boomers want it now.